Stolen from eteamz

[kcg NC2Ablu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That's one way to look at it. Personally, I'm ruling INT based upon 8.6.Q. Runners go back and batter is out.

in 7.6.Q the batter has to actively hinder the catcher while in the box... how is a ball that has been blocked into the batter and because its been blocked hits her bat and goes out of play the batters fault or an active hinderence to the catcher. My rule of thumb bat hits ball (batted ball or ball four or dropped third strike that is on the ground or in the air) a second time we have a dead ball out where as ball hits bat we have nothing. In this case the ball didnt hit the bat a second time. The first time it was hit was the batter standing in the box with a bat in their hands and the catcher blocked it into the batter. How can the batter be punished for being in the box in this situation? I would almost think it should be a foul ball or at least a dead ball in the box. The OP sounds like it was almost instintanious (hope I spelled it ok) and I would have a HARD time awarding bases or calling the batter out. Its definately a difficult application of rules any way you look at it

[celebur]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

The OP sounds like it was almost instintanious (hope I spelled it ok) and I would have a HARD time awarding bases or calling the batter out. Its definately a difficult application of rules any way you look at it

Me too. My gut reaction is to simply kill the play and put runners back to TOP bases, but my gut reaction has gotten me into trouble here before, so I'll see what the heavies have to say.

And it's "instantaneous".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

in 7.6.Q the batter has to actively hinder the catcher while in the box... how is a ball that has been blocked into the batter and because its been blocked hits her bat and goes out of play the batters fault or an active hinderence to the catcher.

There is no intent necessary. There was a play in progress and the batter did something that hindered the catcher from making a play on a live ball.

My rule of thumb bat hits ball (batted ball or ball four or dropped third strike that is on the ground or in the air) a second time we have a dead ball out where as ball hits bat we have nothing. In this case the ball didnt hit the bat a second time. The first time it was hit was the batter standing in the box with a bat in their hands and the catcher blocked it into the batter. How can the batter be punished for being in the box in this situation? I would almost think it should be a foul ball or at least a dead ball in the box. The OP sounds like it was almost instintanious (hope I spelled it ok) and I would have a HARD time awarding bases or calling the batter out. Its definately a difficult application of rules any way you look at it

I'm sorry, I cannot find the "Rule of Thumb" in ASA's rule book. Page number?

Unfortunately, the umpire doesn't have a choice. If you do not have INT, you have no basis for returning R2 and I guarantee, she will be on 2B before you figure out what happened and killed the play. If not, she is laying down on the ground and you have no bases for ignoring the defenses' inability to put that runner out because the offense hit the ball over the fence, whether it was intentional or not.

And before you start about this rule, yes, I was in the room during discussions and was one of the very few really opposing the change from the previous rule requiring intent at the convention in Colorado Springs. Unfortunately, I had my say in a handful of committees and very little backing from anyone who counts. The only reason the "actively hindering" was allowed to remain in the book is because then-Region 13 UIC, Steve Rollins fought for it to avoid the throwing at the batter's head.

I'm not disagreeing with what you want to do or think is fair, just saying that you don't have much rule book backing for any call other than INT.

Now, if the runners were just standing on the bases (more likely to happen in SP than FP), then there is no play with which to INT and a simple dead ball call is appropriate. You cannot award bases or the offense would be trying to knock every loose ball out of play.

[charliej47]

I thought it was decided that it would be left to the umpire's judgment.

[kcg NC2Ablu]

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA]There is no intent necessary. There was a play in progress and the batter did something that hindered the catcher from making a play on a live ball.



I didnt discuss intent in my post and by that logic the batter swinging the bat and hitting the ball on a hit and run is hindering the catcher so we should call the batter out. If the play was as quick as it seems there is no way that you can call the batter out. There is no INT on this play for the simple fact that the batter cannot instantly jump out of the box as soon as it hits the mitt and if they did and the catcher throws to third as a snap throw and hits the batter now the batter has vacated the box what do you call? By rule this is INT bc the batter has left the area in which they can be provided that there is no imidiate play at home. If the ball is blocked by the catcher and rolls into the foot of the batter and now the catcher is hindered bc lets say there is a tie up there I understand but there is no way you can punish the batter for being where the batter is supposed to be and had no reason to have to vacate.

By the way my book isnt published yet .... but trust me ... it will be just so I can get you a page number

[IRISHMAFIA]

I didnt discuss intent in my post

I didn't say you did, but now that you raised it, the manner in which you were presenting "actively hindering" sounded alot like you were looking for intent, IMO.

and by that logic the batter swinging the bat and hitting the ball on a hit and run is hindering the catcher so we should call the batter out.

That is simply absurd, but that shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Now you are just actively hindering any intelligent conversation.

If the play was as quick as it seems there is no way that you can call the batter out. There is no INT on this play for the simple fact that the batter cannot instantly jump out of the box as soon as it hits the mitt

This has nothing to do with the location of the batter, but the actions taken by the batter. Two different rules.

and if they did and the catcher throws to third as a snap throw and hits the batter now the batter has vacated the box what do you call?

INT, but as previously stated, that is another rule. Let's try staying on point.

If the ball is blocked by the catcher and rolls into the foot of the batter and now the catcher is hindered bc lets say there is a tie up there I understand but there is no way you can punish the batter for being where the batter is supposed to be and had no reason to have to vacate.

What, did you just wake up while typing? You know why that is NOT interference? Huh, do ya? BECAUSE IT ISN'T ACTIVELY HINDERING THE CATCHER!!! The batter is where she is supposed to be and doing what she is supposed to be doing.

By the way my book isnt published yet .... but trust me ... it will be just so I can get you a page number

Don't worry about it, I'm not going to need it. I don't care too much for fiction.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

in 7.6.Q the batter has to actively hinder the catcher while in the box... how is a ball that has been blocked into the batter and because its been blocked hits her bat and goes out of play the batters fault or an active hinderence to the catcher. My rule of thumb bat hits ball (batted ball or ball four or dropped third strike that is on the ground or in the air) a second time we have a dead ball out where as ball hits bat we have nothing. In this case the ball didnt hit the bat a second time. The first time it was hit was the batter standing in the box with a bat in their hands and the catcher blocked it into the batter. How can the batter be punished for being in the box in this situation? I would almost think it should be a foul ball or at least a dead ball in the box. The OP sounds like it was almost instintanious (hope I spelled it ok) and I would have a HARD time awarding bases or calling the batter out. Its definately a difficult application of rules any way you look at it

I can see the active interference way of looking at this - the batter moved in a way that was not part of batting. However, I agree with you in that I don't like the idea of punishing a batter for a situation that the catcher caused by misplaying the pitch. I believe that I can easily sell this as a pitch that has gone out of play - ball on batter, runners advance 1 base from TOP. This can't be a foul - the ball came off of the catcher's shin guard. I don't see how I can get just a dead ball on this.

[charliej47]

When I first heard of this, I thought they were talking about the batter hitting the ball a second time and it going out of play. In other words 'the batter swings and hits the ball, the ball hits the ground and on the follow-through or a second touch where F2 was tryinig to play the balll, the batter was called out for interference'. I can see where the catcher would allow the ball to bounce off of her and then hit the batter expecting to have me call INT.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Steve M

This can't be a foul - the ball came off of the catcher's shin guard. I don't see how I can get just a dead ball on this.

What about "Ball hits bat still on batters shoulder"?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about "Ball hits bat still on batters shoulder"?

Cecil,
The pitch went past the batter, hit the catcher, then hit the batter's bat - do you really think you call sell a foul ball on that?

"Pitch in dirt, hits F2 shin guard bounces straight up. Batter turns quickly looking down for ball. Ball hits bat still on batters shoulder and goes over the 3B screen and out of play."

That's not a foul ball.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by Steve M

That's not a foul ball.

No kidding......

Anyway, there is nothing to show the batter is "actively hindering" the catcher while in the box. IMO you have a dead ball based on a pitch, ball on batter and all runners awarded one base from where they were at time of pitch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Points that are conveniently being omitted by folks who don't want the hear the INT side of the argument.

The batter moved the bat. Don't care if it is still on her shoulder. If a pitched ball hits the bat on the batter's shoulder and roles to the pitcher, are you going to ignore it? If the batter moved the bat to take a practice swing, would it be different? If so, how? The batter would still be interfering with the play.

The batter moved in a manner NOT associated with their natural stance, swing or reaction. That is 'actively hindering'.

The fact that it hit the catcher is irrelevant as to whether the ball is still live and the defense have the opportunity to make a play and/or get an out on an active runner.

It was an accident. So what? It's an accident when a batter ducks a high pitch that hits the bat, but the results are the same as if the contact was intentional. It's an accident when the pitcher drops the ball during delivery, but it doesn't mean we ignore it. It's an accident if F3 fakes a throw to 3B and the ball slips and goes out of play. Do we ignore that?

Instead of trying to justify ignoring a rule, try thinking about it from the defense's side. After all, there are two teams out there. Not all things are fair. The batter made a mistake. $hit happens.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Points that are conveniently being omitted by folks who don't want the hear the INT side of the argument.

The batter moved the bat. Don't care if it is still on her shoulder. If a pitched ball hits the bat on the batter's shoulder and roles to the pitcher, are you going to ignore it? If the batter moved the bat to take a practice swing, would it be different? If so, how? The batter would still be interfering with the play.

The batter moved in a manner NOT associated with their natural stance, swing or reaction. That is 'actively hindering'.

The fact that it hit the catcher is irrelevant as to whether the ball is still live and the defense have the opportunity to make a play and/or get an out on an active runner.

It was an accident. So what? It's an accident when a batter ducks a high pitch that hits the bat, but the results are the same as if the contact was intentional. It's an accident when the pitcher drops the ball during delivery, but it doesn't mean we ignore it. It's an accident if F3 fakes a throw to 3B and the ball slips and goes out of play. Do we ignore that?

Instead of trying to justify ignoring a rule, try thinking about it from the defense's side. After all, there are two teams out there. Not all things are fair. The batter made a mistake. $hit happens.

If a pitched ball hits the bat of a batter trying to avoid being hit or whatever accident might cause bat-ball contact, is that a batted ball, fair or foul depending on where it goes?

[Dholloway1962]

OP says....Pitch in dirt, hits F2 shin guard bounces straight up. Batter turns quickly looking down for ball.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The batter moved in a manner NOT associated with their natural stance, swing or reaction. That is 'actively hindering'.

How can the batter turning quickly looking down for the ball not be considered a natural reaction...especially with a runner on 3B. All batters will look for the ball to clue the runner on 3B on whether to steal home or not.

In fact everything the batter did is a perfectly normal reaction to what happened on this play...normal stance after a swing, normal bat position after a swing, normal reaction to the ball.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Cecil,
The pitch went past the batter, hit the catcher, then hit the batter's bat - do you really think you call sell a foul ball on that?

"Pitch in dirt, hits F2 shin guard bounces straight up. Batter turns quickly looking down for ball. Ball hits bat still on batters shoulder and goes over the 3B screen and out of play."

That's not a foul ball.

My point was just that you seemed to skip the ball hitting the bat by saying "the ball came off of the catcher's shin guard".
I guess I could live with it being a pitch that went to DBT and ignore who or what it hit, just need a rule citation to avoid the DC protest.